Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --

---- S. 395 --- Appreciation of evidence --- Eye-witnesses were natural and independent witnesses whose presence at the spot at the time of occurrence was neither disputed nor any enmity was a leged against them --- Eye-witnesses also had no motive to falsely implicit accused and their testimony was reliable --- F.I.R. had been promptly lodged --- Eye witnesses had also correctly identified the accused in the identification test --- Statements of accused on oath did not inspire confidence --- Conviction of accused was upheld in circumstances.

Khadim Hussain v. The State 1985 SCMR 721; Ghulam Rasool and 3 others v. The State 1988 SCMR 557; Muhammad Yousuf Zai v. The State PLD 1988 Kar. 539 and.Mumtaz Ahmed and another v. The State PLD 1990 FSC 38 ref